Recommended Posts

Not completely true. If you Open a .jpg, .tif, or .png file you can edit it in Photo and Save it (overwriting the original file), as long as you have not created any new layers, or have flattened any that you created. What you cannot do is Save As and end up with a file of another name and the same file type. For that you must Export.

For your 16-bit TIFF question: It will be saved as 16-bit, as that is what it is. It will be saved as compressed, because Affinity compresses all TIFF files, but the compression is lossless. You will not lose any image data or fidelity.

In the 1.6 versions of Affinity the compression is LZW, which may actually make your 16-bit TIFF files larger when "compressed". Serif has changed the compression method in the 1.7 versions (now in beta) to a different lossless version that they believe will be compatible with more programs as it's the one that Adobe uses. They still give the user no choice about whether to compress, but I suppose they may, someday.

OK, thank you for clarifying that point. I don't ever work on .jpg files because of the losses inherent in that data compression algorithm. For me, if I am working on a complex image requiring many hours and frequent saves, I don't ever want to overwrite my file location with the latest version. Many layers of a composite image may make for files which are unwieldy in size until they are eventually flattened. Realistically, nowadays, the advent of cheap and plentiful storage does not have the same bearing on this issue that it used to. However, my habit is assemble my composite files using several iterations of the work. Overwriting any of my work until it is in its final state is the one behaviour I really do not want.

As to the value of LZW against ZIP and the whole inflate/deflate method, I use a fast enough machine with solid state storage and a few Mb saved is less important than absolute compatibility and speed of manipulation. My last photography contract required me to create, process and store 60,000 images for one website. My storage comprises many terra-bytes and speed of access is far more important to me than time spent compressing and decompressing files. I would prefer to be able to specify no compression if the matter was mine to decide.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

OK, thank you for clarifying that point. I don't ever work on .jpg files because of the losses inherent in that data compression algorithm.

I think most people here are aware of that and work on RAW files with the seldom exception of a mobile phones camera picture.

I develop my CR2 with Canon DPP, export it as TIF to Photoshop, work on the PSD file and at the end of the process as the very last step I save it as JPEG. And yes, I said "save". Stop that "export" nonsense please.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yes, but it's automaticly selected if I choose "JPEG" to be my destination format.

Also the "keep layers" checkbox is deselected and disabled. So I can see what happens.

After reading this discussion about the topic i still feel the separation between those in two distinct menus is entirely artificial and not user friendly at all.

In Photoshop as long as you did not save it as PSD it will still show the file as unsaved and ask on exit.

Please tell me why Affinity apps should not behave the same way.

We agree on the conclusion that Affinity should behave with the normal UX for Save as.

The irony is we agree on the conclusion because we disagree on whether there's a practical difference between Export and Save as. You claim there isn't (and so I'm puzzled why you think Affinity should behave in the standard classic way)… while I claim there is and this is the very reason that Affinity should behave in the standard classic way.

What this shows, I guess… is that the standard classic way is critical no matter what your viewpoint on Save as vs Export.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The issue is that Save As and Export are two different, yet equally important concepts:

Thank you.

2 hours ago, cal.zone said:

Having to use Export in Affinity effectively kills this entire workflow branch and forces you to always keep an Affinity Photo version (either on disk or in memory) while exporting your copy elsewhere.

Agreed.

My use case is that I import a file in .tif format and process it. That processing may occupy weeks of my time if it is a complex composite image. I wish to save the file in its semi-processed .tif state. Affinity forces me to make an Affinity Photo file which I have already no need to keep. I am working on my .tif image and I would prefer to keep it in that format without the need for overwriting any previous work or creating an Affinity Photo file every time I process the same .tif file.

My digital negative is the RAW image and that is what I keep and file, so that I can always process my image again as required by the client or when techniques improve. I process my RAW images in DXO Optics Pro because I can rely on the conversions and I am not being forced to create a file I have no use for. The Affinity RAW conversions are not as good as DXO Optics Pro just yet but assuming that they would serve the purpose, I would have no need to keep an Affinity Photo image file because my 24Mb RAW .ARW file is my insurance that I can always recover my images. Affinity Photo (just like DXO Optics Pro which I use now) would be just the intermediate file used for processing the image.

My interest in an image is the subject matter, followed by the manner in which it portrays the subject and meets the brief. I treat the RAW file (A) as the digital negative and the finished file as the work derived from the digital negative (B). The manner of getting from A ~ B is immaterial and purely a matter of convenient workflow and method. My interest in the software only extends to the point of understanding what the software can help me to do and what its effect on the quality of my work is.

My linked piece discussed the behaviour of the software and how it is currently not quite as easy to use as the professional epithet would suggest. For my own use case it is incredibly tedious to keep pulling up the same file for multiple times and many hours of editing work and having to specifically say that I do not want my carefully produced .tif file to be turned into an Affinity Photo file. When my work (.tif) is saved, I want the file path remembered and I do not want to overwrite any previous work.

The parallel that I can use to illustrate my ire is this; what I find irritating is when Windows software observes the user doing something that they wanted to do, it asks "are you sure?" despite the fact that the user initiated the action. Affinity Photo feels like that to me. I am editing a highly complex 16bit .tif file because that is what I want to do. I understand why I am doing it and I don't want the software interposing itself between me and my objective because of some notion that I may not understand the implications of choices which I have made.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

We agree on the conclusion that Affinity should behave with the normal UX for Save as.

The irony is we agree on the conclusion because we disagree on whether there's a practical difference between Export and Save as. You claim there isn't (and so I'm puzzled why you think Affinity should behave in the standard classic way)… while I claim there is and this is the very reason that Affinity should behave in the standard classic way.

What this shows, I guess… is that the standard classic way is critical no matter what your viewpoint on Save as vs Export.

Ok, yes, you're right. I just re-thinked that: There is a difference between saving and exporting, but it really should be hidden from the users view.

To make that distinction explicit with the two different menus they go to far. This confuses users as they want the "standard classic way".

A user must not be confronted all the time with the fact that there is a difference. If he forgets to save out a PSD/aphoto/gimp file he can be reminded on closing the program "Hey user, nice you saved some JPEGs/PDFs/whatever on your journey, but if you really want to keep ALL your stuff, will you save a PSD/aphoto/gimp now? Or do you like to discard?".

I would never see that message as Ctrl-S every minute is how I trust computers.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The parallel that I can use to illustrate my ire is this; what I find irritating is when Windows software observes the user doing something that they wanted to do, it asks "are you sure?" despite the fact that the user initiated the action. Affinity Photo feels like that to me. I am editing a highly complex 16bit .tif file because that is what I want to do. I understand why I am doing it and I don't want the software interposing itself between me and my objective because of some notion that I may not understand the implications of choices which I have made.

I think this is because there will be always things in a file that you can't save exactly as is to a TIF.

For example TIF can't AFAIK take adjustment layers as is, just pixel layers.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I think this is because there will be always things in a file that you can't save exactly as is to a TIF.

For example TIF can't AFAIK take adjustment layers as is, just pixel layers.

So you loose something.

You can save a layered .tif file. I do it all of the time for my own processing purposes. There are no specific extensions for each vendor and saving a layered .tif file is not a specified content standard for the tagged image file format. Worse, if other people could not read it , it would be pointless to try and save such a file. Correctly, a portable image standard for a layered file such as .PSD would be the way to go. I use the format for my work and my convenience only. If I had to send the work elsewhere (e.g. printing houses) I use the PDF format. Print on demand houses sometimes use this format and sometimes have their own software. In every case, I use their icc colour profile.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I think this is because there will be always things in a file that you can't save exactly as is to a TIF.

For example TIF can't AFAIK take adjustment layers as is, just pixel layers.

So you loose something.

I think you'll find that you can Export a TIF from Affinity Photo and it will maintain almost all of the Affinity data, including those layers, but only Affinity will be able to read them. Other applications will just see a flattened copy of the image.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Correctly, a portable image standard for a layered file such as .PSD would be the way to go.

PSD is not really a standard; its format and major features are merely understood by many different applications. It's really owned by Adobe, and there are features in it that only Adobe understands and that are not documented for others to use.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

PSD is not really a standard; its format and major features are merely understood by many different applications. It's really owned by Adobe, and there are features in it that only Adobe understands and that are not documented for others to use.

Yes, of course. Unfortunately, my experience has been that many printing house now want and request images in PSD form (a bit like asking for text in the .doc format) and because Adobe own the format and the current weight of professional use appears to be Photoshop or nothing; the .PSD image format appears to have become a default.

Adobe also own PDF format but it is incredibly versatile and useful as well as being rather well developed so it has become a great default file type. Adobe attempted to do the same with images when they supported the .dng file format. I think this has been much less successful because concurrently, many manufacturers had their own well developed RAW file formats.

The inception of the PDF file format was when the interrelatedness of all digital processing was not quite as apparent. Just look at how many vendors of UNIX and its unices variants there were. The cost of each manufacturer's baby was frequently outrageous. IRIX anyone? Motif? X-Windows? I agree with your point Walt. I handle a lot of images and PSD has almost become a de facto standard.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yes, of course. Unfortunately, my experience has been that many printing house now want and request images in PSD form (a bit like asking for text in the .doc format) and because Adobe own the format and the current weight of professional use appears to be Photoshop or nothing; the .PSD image format appears to have become a default.

Yes, PSD is a de facto standard, but sometimes I research a bit regarding long time archival of my files and I read over and over that TIF is recommended because of it's good documentation. If you want to read a file in 50 years from now many recommend TIF.

But right now I will stay with CR2 and PSD as I will have enough time to convert when time has come.

I certainly will not fall for DNG where Adobe failed to establish a standard. As an exception they may fail sometimes.

Link to post

Share on other sites

But obviously only in photo. When I open an image file in PS and edit it, I usually save it in the same format, with a different name in the same folder from which I opened it. This is easily with "Save As". The quality for the storage I set once. The picture is closed. Finished. The original remains unchanged and I can compare at any time original with the edited image.

I never see a need for me to save photos in .afphoto format. With the tens of thousands of photos I've saved, that would soon exceed the capacity of my hard drive(s). After all, I've saved my pictures at least twice on external hard drives.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

But obviously only in photo. When I open an image file in PS and edit it, I usually save it in the same format, with a different name in the same folder from which I opened it. This is easily with "Save As". The quality for the storage I set once. The picture is closed. Finished. The original remains unchanged and I can compare at any time original with the edited image.

Of course, but Photo is what we're talking about. It does not work the same as Photoshop, and Serif has no intention that it should.

It is, though, confusing that Serif allows Save to work for saving JPG, TIFF, and PNG, but does not allow Save As to work similarly. I think that either both Save and Save As should work, or neither.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

In the case of Save, the file format is clearly defined - based on the file that was just opened.
In the case of SaveAs, it would be necessary to define the format of the file to be saved - and this is reserved for Export.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

As I wrote elsewhere, in my application after years of experimenting and testing, SaveAs also switched to Export (it has a lot of advantages for me).
So I welcome this clear solution - my first contact was very positive :-)

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I just ran into one of the use cases for which Affinity's approach drives me bonkers:

(I work in web development, so this actually happens a lot… but for a while I hadn't been working with images so forgot this exact workflow problem… until now)

I drag an image (typically a logo) on a website (or copy it to the clipboard) onto the Affinity Photo icon in my dock.

I need to do some cropping or touch up work to it. The drag and drop action opens Affinity Photo and loads the photo for editing.

Alternatively, if I copied to clipboard, I open a new blank document and paste.

I make my edits.

Because the file did not originate on my filesystem and doesn't technically exist yet, if I were to save my changes, they'd be lost… saved to some temporary cache deep within the filesystem. So I have to Save As… in order to save it as a brand new file onto my desktop. But Save As… doesn't give me the ability to save a standard non-proprietary format (like png or jpg). Indeed, if I dragged the image from the browser onto the AP icon, it has already opened up correctly as a flat png file. If I were to save, it would correctly save as png… (except not in the right place on my filesystem and the temporary files get overwritten very quickly, so even assuming I had the time and inclination to navigate to the temporary items folder and find it… it might be too late).

I'm forced to use the export multi-step process to save a file that should naturally save in it's original format and specifications. I shouldn't have to decide whether it's going to be PNG or JPG or the resolution or quality or bit depth… or transparency… it's all ridiculous.

Now, mind you, this exact same problem exists any time you create a brand new AP document. You are not allowed to save it as anything other than AP. Your only recourse is to export. So even if you don't work on the web, perhaps you create a new document and paste a jpg and doodle over it and flatten it… nothing serious. You're forced to save as AP or export,

There's no good reason for this behavior. It suits no one. People can defend it all they want, but in reality, what they're saying is: "I don't have this workflow problem so I don't care" or "I'm not bothered by having to go through extra steps to accomplish this so I don't care".

And you know, there's an awful lot of technological development that we can all live without or work around. We don't need word processors… we can use typewriters. We don't need automatic shifters in our cars, we can use manual transmission. We don't need electric mixers… we can whip by hand. We don't need calculators, we can do it long hand.

The point is: it should be a fairly trivial change for Affinity as changes go. And it has zero drawbacks and only benefit to lots of workflows.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

This is something that used to tick me off particularly strongly as well. It was something I hated when I first made an attempt at using GIMP to get away from Photoshop, and was far from being one of my favorite features when I converted to AP. It just seemed so much simpler for me to choose what file type I intended to target during the Save As dialogue.

Though now that I've used AP for a good while, I've grown accustomed to exporting, rather than saving as. If I want to save my .afphoto file, Ctrl+S. If I want to save it as something to be used or displayed elsewhere, Ctrl+Alt+Shift+S. It's now committed to muscle memory, and I've come to accept that it is oh-so-slightly more straightforward than what I was previously used to in Photoshop, despite appearing to be more convoluted on the front end.

All I can say is give it time. It'll eventually sink in, and become rote.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If I were making the argument that it's not ideal, but you learn to live with it, I'd agree with you.

But I'm not. I'm saying that, despite requiring another deliberate action to save your images as other file types, it's actually more straightforward. In PS, exporting and save as are all done within the same dialog box. It seems simpler at a casual glance, because the same keystroke brings up both, but the process itself is a little more complicated, and not quite as immediately transparent. It'll default to a .psd, and if you want to save it out as, say, a jpeg, you have to select .jpg from a long drop down menu, click save, which THEN brings up another dialog box with all your jpeg compression options.

In AP, you get your export options laid out in a nice horizontal row, and clicking on each shows you the sub-options for that particular file type up front, all within the same dialog box. It's much better organized, and easier to come to terms with. The only downside is that it's accessed through another hotkey binding you have to become accustomed to.

Though to play devil's advocate, you could play to the happy medium, and make it so that Ctrl+S brings up the export dialog box, but it includes .afphoto options in there alongside the rest.